I don’t think it’s anti-AI more a lack of trust of services saying here’s a product…and the concern it will be used for ulterior motives. I know I don’t like my voice being captured.
What do you think are the ulterior motives behind this GPLv3 licensed app?
I think the ulterior motive is getting better accessibility tools so it’s easier to convince governments to use Ubuntu (and likely pay for extended support).
That response, especially given that this is something that’s entirely offline and optional, is probably the closest we’re going to get to you admitting that you just want to be negative about this rather than actually having a criticism of it.
I agree. I have spent years in tech. And I have worked trusted and advocated but in the last 5 years or so it’s changed. And I trust little of it. It’s not the tech, it’s the people it’s in the hands of. I am at the point of cynic now and I’ll stay on that side until I see otherwise. Is that wrong?
It’s captured when you press a button and only handled locally. This is exactly the sort of thing you want for accessibility. Not everybody can type or type well.
Nothing AI is free. Unless there’s a chain of custody for all of the training data, it’s still unethical even if it’s used for a good thing. If I build a wheelchair ramp out of the flesh and bones of orphans I’m still not a very good person. And there are non-AI ways to accomplish this that are just as good that would require almost comically less resources.
This attitude is why Ubuntu, and only Ubuntu, recommends a minimum of 6 GB of Ram btw. You can run a full KDE system with onboard graphics and all the bells and whistles for less than 2 GB on other distros.
If I build a wheelchair ramp out of the flesh and bones of orphans I’m still not a very good person.
Comparing copyright, a bullshit concept that was designed only to protect the rich, to building with “the flesh and bones of orphans” is so extreme that it’s not even worth arguing about.
Being pro-AI is the same as being pro-capitalist, and thus pro-orphan crushing machine.
Having your work stolen so that a soulless faceless corporate entity can charge teenagers to recreate it at will and pretend they have any talent or capability whatsoever is pretty shitty, and defending it is anti-proletariat.
Wow you mean I too can burn electricity while stealing artist’s work so I can pretend to be an artist?! Wow mommy we can be homegrown douchebags these days!
Without a specific chain of custody for every piece of training data going into the models, there is a default that the model cannot be trusted and is likely infringing on someone’s copyright.
To specify the 'nothing AI is free" part, LLMs are grossly computationally inefficient. Whether it’s local or not.
Those are the settled ones so far. This is 4 years into AI existing. Lawsuits, especially copyright lawsuits, tend to take up to a decade in the US, because the US legal system is shit.
In February 2025, the court granted summary judgment that such copying was not fair use, emphasizing that the purpose of ROSS’s copying was to build a directly competing product
Bartz v. Anthropic
The court granted summary judgment for Anthropic that training LLMs on copyrighted materials is fair use.
Kadrey v. Meta
Judge Vince Chhabria denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on fair use and granted Meta’s cross-motion and granted Meta’s motion for partial summary judgment on the DMCA claim.
UMG v Udio
Settled - no judgement.
Those are the settled ones so far. This is 4 years into AI existing. Lawsuits, especially copyright lawsuits, tend to take up to a decade in the US, because the US legal system is shit.
Here’s 118 currently in progress. Because AI is copyright infringement.
Having lawsuits is not winning lawsuits. The AI companies have been winning on fair use. Same as Google back in the 2000s when they were sued for for various search products (news, books, etc.).
I admit I don’t know the details, but the title makes it seem like there is a “product” there, by a “company”, probably in it for the profit. And since there is a huge problem with datacenters as it is, why would we encourage more? Most of you AI enthousiasts are blindly walking us into a pit of regret.
I admit I don’t know the details, but the title makes it seem like there is a “product” there, by a “company”, probably in it for the profit.
You don’t know more than the details - you don’t know anything about it.
And since there is a huge problem with datacenters as it is, why would we encourage more? Most of you AI enthousiasts are blindly walking us into a pit of regret.
Guess you’ll want to research what “offline” means. I doubt you have any idea what any problems with datacenters are either given your… we’ll call it “knowledge” of the situation.
You want “reason”? AI is a jumped up chatbot with delusions of grandeur that jacks up energy prices, consumes a stupid amount of scare water and throttles the supply of computer parts just to tell people there are 5 Rs in strawberry and that they should kill themselves. Not to mention the outright theft of the works of authors, designers, and artists.
FUCK. AI.
And fuck you for comparing me to those shit dribbling twats in MAGA.
You don’t like accessibility?
Not for that price.
The “price” of a free offline speech to text AI model? Three of them, actually, to work with varying levels of compute resources available?
You anti-AI folks are friggin’ ridiculous.
I don’t think it’s anti-AI more a lack of trust of services saying here’s a product…and the concern it will be used for ulterior motives. I know I don’t like my voice being captured.
What do you think are the ulterior motives behind this GPLv3 licensed app? I think the ulterior motive is getting better accessibility tools so it’s easier to convince governments to use Ubuntu (and likely pay for extended support).
I’m not sure but I’m done believing that tech enhancements pushed at me benefit me.
That response, especially given that this is something that’s entirely offline and optional, is probably the closest we’re going to get to you admitting that you just want to be negative about this rather than actually having a criticism of it.
I agree. I have spent years in tech. And I have worked trusted and advocated but in the last 5 years or so it’s changed. And I trust little of it. It’s not the tech, it’s the people it’s in the hands of. I am at the point of cynic now and I’ll stay on that side until I see otherwise. Is that wrong?
I’m just making it clear that you don’t have any actual criticisms of this application and haven’t addressed it when people point out that:
You’re welcome to remain belligerent. I’m not here to change your mind.
It’s captured when you press a button and only handled locally. This is exactly the sort of thing you want for accessibility. Not everybody can type or type well.
I agree. It’s a great use. I just can’t trust any tech company now. Even if they mean well abuses happen.
So you’ve just thrown away your phone and computer? You posting from a library or something?
No…I’m not that far but taking steps to work on what I can control.
I can’t totally escape
Nothing AI is free. Unless there’s a chain of custody for all of the training data, it’s still unethical even if it’s used for a good thing. If I build a wheelchair ramp out of the flesh and bones of orphans I’m still not a very good person. And there are non-AI ways to accomplish this that are just as good that would require almost comically less resources.
This attitude is why Ubuntu, and only Ubuntu, recommends a minimum of 6 GB of Ram btw. You can run a full KDE system with onboard graphics and all the bells and whistles for less than 2 GB on other distros.
Comparing copyright, a bullshit concept that was designed only to protect the rich, to building with “the flesh and bones of orphans” is so extreme that it’s not even worth arguing about.
Being pro-AI is the same as being pro-capitalist, and thus pro-orphan crushing machine.
Having your work stolen so that a soulless faceless corporate entity can charge teenagers to recreate it at will and pretend they have any talent or capability whatsoever is pretty shitty, and defending it is anti-proletariat.
You know you can use AI yourself too right? There’s no need to be anti-AI when you can be anti-OpenAI/Anthropic/Google/etc.
Wow you mean I too can burn electricity while stealing artist’s work so I can pretend to be an artist?! Wow mommy we can be homegrown douchebags these days!
This is the weirdest sort of AI bullshit I keep coming across.
And… Where are they?
Hi this must be your first time on Earth in the last decade, every single AI company has been in or is currently in no less than ten dozen lawsuits over copyright infringement. It’s so bad there’s at least one website purpose built to track copyright infringement from AI companies..
Without a specific chain of custody for every piece of training data going into the models, there is a default that the model cannot be trusted and is likely infringing on someone’s copyright.
To specify the 'nothing AI is free" part, LLMs are grossly computationally inefficient. Whether it’s local or not.
Already installed on most distros.
So where are the winning lawsuits of all that copyright infringement then?
And they are called… ?
Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence
Bartz v. Anthropic
Kadrey v. Meta
UMG v Udio
Those are the settled ones so far. This is 4 years into AI existing. Lawsuits, especially copyright lawsuits, tend to take up to a decade in the US, because the US legal system is shit.
Here’s 118 currently in progress. Because AI is copyright infringement.
In February 2025, the court granted summary judgment that such copying was not fair use, emphasizing that the purpose of ROSS’s copying was to build a directly competing product
The court granted summary judgment for Anthropic that training LLMs on copyrighted materials is fair use.
Judge Vince Chhabria denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on fair use and granted Meta’s cross-motion and granted Meta’s motion for partial summary judgment on the DMCA claim.
Settled - no judgement.
Having lawsuits is not winning lawsuits. The AI companies have been winning on fair use. Same as Google back in the 2000s when they were sued for for various search products (news, books, etc.).
I admit I don’t know the details, but the title makes it seem like there is a “product” there, by a “company”, probably in it for the profit. And since there is a huge problem with datacenters as it is, why would we encourage more? Most of you AI enthousiasts are blindly walking us into a pit of regret.
You don’t know more than the details - you don’t know anything about it.
Guess you’ll want to research what “offline” means. I doubt you have any idea what any problems with datacenters are either given your… we’ll call it “knowledge” of the situation.
Fuck AI.
Well “reasoned” argument there. You’ll go far in MAGA.
You want “reason”? AI is a jumped up chatbot with delusions of grandeur that jacks up energy prices, consumes a stupid amount of scare water and throttles the supply of computer parts just to tell people there are 5 Rs in strawberry and that they should kill themselves. Not to mention the outright theft of the works of authors, designers, and artists.
FUCK. AI.
And fuck you for comparing me to those shit dribbling twats in MAGA.